[Sca-cooks] Is cooking like costuming?

[Elaine Koogler]

I feel I must chime in at this point with a thought I've been dealing with
lately that kind of goes along with what Anahita is saying.  I know we have
said in the past that any modification to a recipe that is not actually
mentioned as a possible substitution in the recipe makes what we produce
"period-oid" rather than period.  OK, consider this thought:  then
everything we cook is period-oid unless we are using a recipe that has all
of the quantities specified AND we are using ingredients that have been
grown/produced and are of the same strain/variety/blend as what was used in
period.  Whenever we redact a recipe that doesn't have exact quantities
specified...or we redact one that uses huge quantities of spices/seasonings
that would make it inedible today (changes in tastes/differences in the
strengths of the seasonings), we are modifying the period recipe, imposing
on it our modern tastes.  Also, whenever we use modern ingredients, we are
modifying the recipe because we are not using the same ingredients used in
period...milk is pasteurized, eggs are treated, meat is grown differently
with the animals being fed different types of feed, etc....I can't really
think of anything we could use that would be truly a period ingredient.

I know I'm carrying this point to its extreme, but it's a logical
extreme....

Kiri

-----Original Message-----
The lovely lady Anahita writes:

I really don't think the differences between cooking and costuming
are as great as you make them out to be. Most people are content to
accept peri-oid food and clothing. There are a few people who are
very scrupulous and who know the difference in either field.

Frankly, other than in the 16th century, there's darned little out
there on cooking *or* costuming that's very conclusive. One of the
biggest differences i can see is that one can find a number of
different colors, fabrics, and fabric patterns to use to make "the
same" Italian Renaissance dress. But there are many aspects of
costuming that are open to interpretation and lots of the
interpretations i've see are way off.

I've seen a number of lovely garments that look "period" to those who
don't know a whole lot, but which are way off if one knows. For
example, i was recently looking at a bodice in a 16th century
"style", but the colors, fabrics, decorative techniques, and
decorative motifs were way off. It was lovely and nicely done and
most people would accept it as "period". But in all truth, it wasn't.
I think, personally, that i would be gracious to call it peri-oid.

Is a houppeland made of printed cotton in pastel colors period or
peri-oid? Is a "Burgundian" dress made of Jacquard woven fabric
period or peri-oid? Is a Tudor dress made of "royal blue" acetate
satin period or peri-oid? Is a garment with "Celtic knot" embroidery
period or peri-oid? Or are any or all of these things just way off?
And how often do you see people wearing Elizabethan garb made of
wool? Sure, pure silk velvet and a good stiff silk satin are either
impossible or too expensive for the vast majority of us, but are
costumers even using the closest stuffs they can find and afford, or
are they making their garb out of stuffs they just like and think
"look good" on them? And are these choices being generally accepted?

For example, i got into a discussion of period fabric colors on a
relevant e-list. Frankly one cannot know what colors people were
wearing based on paintings, except perhaps in the 16th c. and maybe
sometimes in the late 15th, for several reasons. One reason is the
painter's palette differed greatly from the dyer's. Another is many
paints could not be mixed to produce additional colors, and several
paints could not be used close to each other or the chemicals in them
would react and change the color, often turning one or both black.
Furthermore, prestigious colors in painting are quite different from
prestigious colors in dyes. And, for my last example, a pale colored
garment in the real world would, most of the time, indicate poverty,
yet there are many pastel garments in paintings (parts of the 16th c.
are exceptional).

Additionally, when dealing with certain times and places, damned
little is known. Byzantium, for example. Most of the surviving art
shows royalty in ceremonial garments. Exactly how some of these were
made is still a mystery. What they wore daily is not clear. We have
to interpret art, surviving writings, stuff from other near by - or
not so near by - places that were influenced by, had an influence on,
or traded with Byzantium to try to figure it out.

And Byzantium is not a unique example. But, enough. This is a cooking list.

My basic point is that there's an awful lot that's "accepted" by
people in the SCA as "period" that really really isn't. This goes for
what far too many people would consider "period" costuming as well as
cooking.

Anahita
who costumes, too
_______________________________________________
Sca-cooks mailing list
Sca-cooks at ansteorra.org
http://www.ansteorra.org/mailman/listinfo/sca-cooks